1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIO DE VERA, Case No. 25-cv-07814-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

9 v. REMAND AND DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO

10 UNITED AIRLINES, INC., MOTION TO DISMISS 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 19

12 13 Plaintiff, proceeding without attorney representation, filed this state-law employment 14 discrimination action in Alameda County Superior Court. He alleges he was fraudulently enticed 15 to take an early buy out and that when many years later he was rehired, Defendant retaliated 16 against him. Defendant removed the action to federal court alleging federal question and diversity 17 subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to 18 remand. After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes oral argument 19 is not required, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES the motion to remand. Defendant has 20 established the Court at least has diversity subject matter jurisdiction. 21 DISCUSSION 22 A. Motion to Remand 23 A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal 24 court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 25 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 26 excess of $75,000. The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing that removal 27 1 is proper,” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial 2 Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, when a 3 case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself it has 4 federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 5 2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded to state court “if at any time before 6 final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 7 1447(c). 8 Defendant’s notice of removal establishes the parties’ complete diversity: Plaintiff is a 9 California citizen and Defendant United Airlines is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois. (Dkt. No. 1 10 ¶¶ 7-11.) The notice of removal also demonstrates the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 11 (Id. ¶¶ 12-18.)2 While Plaintiff’s motion to remand claims he only seeks to recover seniority as 12 opposed to back pay, his complaint alleges wrongful termination, and Defendant’s notice of 13 removal shows that termination occurred more than 15 years ago. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 17; Dkt. No. 1-3 ¶¶ 14 2-5.) Defendant’s evidence also shows Plaintiff worked full time at $31.37 an hour at the time of 15 his separation, which places over $1 million in lost earnings in controversy. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 17; Dkt. 16 No. 1-3 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff does not dispute this evidence, (see generally Dkt. No. 19), and the cases 17 Plaintiff cites do not hold otherwise. In Oilund v. United Airlines, 2009 WL 112937, at *1 (N.D. 18 Cal. Jan. 16, 2009), United removed only on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction. 19 Similarly, in Ayson v. United Airlines, No. C 21-6201 (C.D. Cal.), United removed on the grounds 20 of federal question jurisdiction. (Id. Dkt. No. 31.) Neither case suggests Defendant has not 21 established diversity jurisdiction here. So, the motion to remand is DENIED. 22

23 2 In his form complaint, Plaintiff does not check any box under the “remedies sought” section, but Plaintiff identifies the case as Unlimited Jurisdiction, which the form complaint indicates as cases 24 where the “[a]mount demanded exceed[] $35,000.” (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 5-7); see Cal. Code Civ. Pro §§ 86(a) (if the demand in controversy is $35,000 or less, the case is a limited civil case), 88 (“A 25 civil action or proceeding other than a limited civil case may be referred to as an unlimited civil case.”) Plaintiff also alleges causes of action for wrongful termination, age discrimination, 26 retaliation, and harassment, which usually entail monetary damages. Based on this, the Court assumes Plaintiff is seeking at least some damages, despite his failure to include a specific prayer 27 for damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”); 1 B. Motion to Dismiss 2 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims on September 19, 2025. (Dkt. No. 3 12.) Plaintiff never filed an opposition to the motion. Since the Court has subject matter 4 |} jurisdiction of this action, it can and must decide Defendant’s motion to dismiss. As Plaintiff is 5 proceeding without attorney representation, the Court VACATES the December 4, 2025 hearing 6 || on the motion to dismiss, and GRANTS Plaintiff until December 11, 2025 to file an opposition to 7 the motion to dismiss. Defendant may file a reply by December 18, 2025. The Court will advise 8 the parties if oral argument is required. 9 As Plaintiff is without representation by a lawyer, the Court directs his attention to the 10 || Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on 11 the Court’s website located at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. Plaintiff may also 12 || contact the Legal Help Center for free assistance; he can make an appointment by calling 415-782- 13 8982 or emailing fedpro @sfbar.org, 14 This Order disposes of Docket No. 19. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: November 26, 2025 td

ACWUELINE SCOTT CORLE

Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28